In Paterek, et. al. v. Petersen & Obold, et. al., Case  2005-G-2624 (OH 11th Dist., 14 Aug.  2006)  an intermediate appellate court ruled that a legal malpractice plaintiff may recover from her lawyers an award of damage for the amount lost by the malpractice , regardless of  proof  that such an award could have been collected n the underlying case. 

In  Paterek, the malpracticing lawyers failed to timely pursue the plaintiffs' claims arising from an automobile accident. The parties stipulated that the alleged tortfeasor's insurance limit was $100,000, and that there were no other assets identifiable to collect from the alleged tortfeasor.  The jury in the malpractice trial determined that plaintiff could have received a verdict of $328,00 in the underlying matter.  The trial court remitted the verdict down to  $100,000, the amount of liability insurance that could have been collected.  In reinstating the $382,000 verdict, the appeals court majority relied upon the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Vahila v. Hall (1997), 77 O.S.3d 421, to find that the jury should be allowed to determine the damages suffered by the claimant.

In  Paterek  the disserved client has the fortunate circumstance that the malpracticing attorneys had deeper pockets than the auto accident tortfeasor who harmed the Patereks in the first place.

Key terms: Ohio,  attorney negligence, legal malpractice,  expert witness, opinions, professional legal malpractice,  legal ethics.

Attorney Legal Ethics and Seminar Education Site Map